The Buffet tax thing was found. At least I think that was what I found. It is called something like The Fair Share Payment for Wealthiest Americans Act or something like that.
It is written like the tax code--in pure gibberish. My view of it is that it would not affect the wealthiest of people at all. Those who have their money in all sorts of investments and complicated financial instruments, like Buffet, would not even feel this.
I'm not a lawyer, and in a free country I wouldn't need to be to fully comprehend a law. That said, I am pretty sure this is nothing but a PR stunt designed to give satisfaction to those who envy or think someone making a million dollars needs to be cut to size. They already pay more if they don't have the battery of accountants and lawyers to prevent it.
This law would mostly hurt someone like a sole proprietor or a writer or artist who landed it big enough to qualify; people who may have made a million dollars, but who don't have the shelters and power of the Buffets of the world.
I think it is a move by the really big money to slap down the up and coming entrepreneurs who are climbing their way up. Nouveau riche, There is more of an elitist tint to this thing than one might think. If you own a hedge fund or are a high level investment banker, I think you'd be safe.
But it was shot down. Do you have any idea of the number of bizarre resolutions and bills the throw out there every year? It is insane! And the names. The Reform Education to Produce Future Leaders Act---there was one like that. My wording may be slightly off, but definitely not exaggerated. My version would be toned down, if anything.
Many of the bills brought forward are grandstanding and apply to target voter groups. Many seem to be rehashes of things already on the books. It is insane!
I repeat myself, I know. If only there were enough of those legislators who would vote against any bill that wasn't designed to strike down two or three other bills. I'd vote against all of them. It costs a lot of money per hour for those clowns to be in session. Do we really need to pay for a resolution declaring some month, "Asbestos Danger Awareness Month?"
How about Crazy Thieves Spending Your Money, Stealing Your Rights and Property, Selling Out Your Opportunities, Jobs and Resources Awareness Week"?
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Another Moronic Talk Show
San Diego radio has a new guy on now. Something Merrill--spelling may be right or wrong. He's hard to figure in some ways. Generally he's better than that horse's ass, Rick Roberts; the king of self aggrandizement. He disappeared. BooHoo.
Merrill is at least not much of a shill for either political party. His main goal appears to be trying to maintain an image of a cool guy, which he's not.
His latest push is to have everyone 70 and over re-tested for driver's license. Lots of people are on board with that. I'm not. His friend, who I believe was riding bike, was seriously injured in a collision with an "elderly driver".
No doubt some old people are not that safe behind the wheel. But this now brings us to the Great Pretense.
If you want to profile by age and treat one group differently, then let's unleash all the statistics by group. First we divide it up among the various age groups, then by gender, then by ethnicity, and then by legal citizen, legal resident, here on a visa, and here illegally. Based on observation, I'm guessing that within those groups would be found certain combinations of parameters which would point to certain groups, or combinations of groups (eg; 40-50 year old Chinese women) which statistically cause more havoc per capita than people over 70.
It would be reasonable if police took notice of drivers being unsafe, and pulled them over. That seems to be a back burner objective, at best, even though various laws allegedly address such things. Modern traffic enforcement is geared toward producing revenue. And it is a big bureaucracy which complicates effective, but not bullying, behavior.
I fear that targeting such a group could lead to a somewhat biased atmosphere on the re-test, resulting in being unjustly denied the right to drive. Oh, I forgot, I'm supposed to say "driving privilege". Sorry. I still think it is a right unless it is shown that you aren't up to the task.
Privilege sounds like someone doing you a favor by allowing you to operate a machine. I think of it how I do, and have never been able to change that view. Either way, no one has a right to endanger the life or property of others.
The Chinese woman example was purely an example, and in no way reflects an opinion on how the statistics would pan out. I would not state my views of what groups are the greatest hazard on a percentage basis. That would bring nothing but trouble.
Anyway, Merrill is on a crusade because he's a long way from 70. Just what is needed in this country, and this state, more laws which require more money to implement.
The responsible thing to do is to monitor yourself and refrain from putting others at risk. If you are too self centered and crazy to do this, then your family should step in. Or the cops ought to take notice that you are driving like a monkey on magic mushrooms.
Merrill isn't a moron just for this crusade. It is his lack of depth when it comes to reasoning on things, his constant stereo-typing people with Southern accents, and his skirting truth in order to keep the cool guy image.
Merrill is at least not much of a shill for either political party. His main goal appears to be trying to maintain an image of a cool guy, which he's not.
His latest push is to have everyone 70 and over re-tested for driver's license. Lots of people are on board with that. I'm not. His friend, who I believe was riding bike, was seriously injured in a collision with an "elderly driver".
No doubt some old people are not that safe behind the wheel. But this now brings us to the Great Pretense.
If you want to profile by age and treat one group differently, then let's unleash all the statistics by group. First we divide it up among the various age groups, then by gender, then by ethnicity, and then by legal citizen, legal resident, here on a visa, and here illegally. Based on observation, I'm guessing that within those groups would be found certain combinations of parameters which would point to certain groups, or combinations of groups (eg; 40-50 year old Chinese women) which statistically cause more havoc per capita than people over 70.
It would be reasonable if police took notice of drivers being unsafe, and pulled them over. That seems to be a back burner objective, at best, even though various laws allegedly address such things. Modern traffic enforcement is geared toward producing revenue. And it is a big bureaucracy which complicates effective, but not bullying, behavior.
I fear that targeting such a group could lead to a somewhat biased atmosphere on the re-test, resulting in being unjustly denied the right to drive. Oh, I forgot, I'm supposed to say "driving privilege". Sorry. I still think it is a right unless it is shown that you aren't up to the task.
Privilege sounds like someone doing you a favor by allowing you to operate a machine. I think of it how I do, and have never been able to change that view. Either way, no one has a right to endanger the life or property of others.
The Chinese woman example was purely an example, and in no way reflects an opinion on how the statistics would pan out. I would not state my views of what groups are the greatest hazard on a percentage basis. That would bring nothing but trouble.
Anyway, Merrill is on a crusade because he's a long way from 70. Just what is needed in this country, and this state, more laws which require more money to implement.
The responsible thing to do is to monitor yourself and refrain from putting others at risk. If you are too self centered and crazy to do this, then your family should step in. Or the cops ought to take notice that you are driving like a monkey on magic mushrooms.
Merrill isn't a moron just for this crusade. It is his lack of depth when it comes to reasoning on things, his constant stereo-typing people with Southern accents, and his skirting truth in order to keep the cool guy image.
Ah Bill, At Least You Were Funny
Even if it was not intended. Never thought I'd miss the days of "It depends on what is is." But, lately, I do.
Something about this causes me to think the country has changed in peculiar ways.
He'd win if he ran this time around. Is that bizarre? I almost wish he'd do it.
Something about this causes me to think the country has changed in peculiar ways.
He'd win if he ran this time around. Is that bizarre? I almost wish he'd do it.
Stepping off the Edge
There is a theory that lots of people who end up lost in some form of insanity actually know at which moment they finally gave up and gave in. I'm not talking about those who do harm or anything, just those who let go of their grasp of reality and whatever combats depression and that sort of thing.
I think there may be something to that. Most of my life has been spent trying to jump back on board. I can pinpoint more than one instance which represented one of those decisive moments. The periods of time when progress was made were never easy or natural. It was a hell of a fight the whole way.
It is not encouraging that I have been so long bogged down during this last stretch. Knowing it is all about decisions helps. Why deciding the on the constructive route, and following it, would be any more difficult than the alternative is a mystery. In the long run, not doing what you know is best takes a lot more out of you. It leaves one progressively more tired, lacking passion, pride, or much of anything that a person should have.
Some of those pivotal moments are more significant than others. But the consequences can be long lasting. I sure am continuing to feel the results. It takes small little victories and perseverance to affect reasonable change. I didn't get here by accident. It was the result of both the times of giving up, and the times of climbing back on board.
It was lucky that I climbed out of the mud when I did, to the extent that I did. Now, I have let myself slide back into directionless trouble. I have decisions to make, and I am deciding not to give up. Why is it so tough to just put it all in order and move ahead with whatever seems best? It doesn't matter why, I suppose. Just bust on through.
I think there may be something to that. Most of my life has been spent trying to jump back on board. I can pinpoint more than one instance which represented one of those decisive moments. The periods of time when progress was made were never easy or natural. It was a hell of a fight the whole way.
It is not encouraging that I have been so long bogged down during this last stretch. Knowing it is all about decisions helps. Why deciding the on the constructive route, and following it, would be any more difficult than the alternative is a mystery. In the long run, not doing what you know is best takes a lot more out of you. It leaves one progressively more tired, lacking passion, pride, or much of anything that a person should have.
Some of those pivotal moments are more significant than others. But the consequences can be long lasting. I sure am continuing to feel the results. It takes small little victories and perseverance to affect reasonable change. I didn't get here by accident. It was the result of both the times of giving up, and the times of climbing back on board.
It was lucky that I climbed out of the mud when I did, to the extent that I did. Now, I have let myself slide back into directionless trouble. I have decisions to make, and I am deciding not to give up. Why is it so tough to just put it all in order and move ahead with whatever seems best? It doesn't matter why, I suppose. Just bust on through.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Debating On A Guess
At some point in my internet using career I decided to actually search out and read things before coming to too strong an opinion on a given topic, such as a bill in the US Senate. The trick is to find the stuff in print, not just hearsay discussions.
I believe one of my first forays into the verbose smoke screen of government prose was the 911 commission report, or whatever it was called. I have since forgotten the title, but not the surprising language and scope of topics.
It had less to do with the nature of the Towers attack, and more to do with laying groundwork for domestic martial law, usurping control of resources, private companies, etc--in the event of any emergency deemed worthy by unelected bureaucrat.
My most recent effort was to actually read this Buffet Tax bill that got defeated. I'm suspicious of it because, if you made a million dollars and didn't take any deductions, didn't know how to invest to save on taxes and all that, you'd already be paying a higher rate than the poor saps who only make 150 thousand, and they'd pay more percentage of their income than those who make 75 thousand.
People tend to forget that even if the percentage was the same the million dollar baby would be paying far more than the seventy five thousand sap.
Buffet, himself, piqued my suspicion when he claimed his high paid secretary pays a higher rate than he does. I mean, this is a guy whose battery of lawyers is dueling with the IRS over a half billion tax bill.
If he is so concerned about the government getting paid, why the lawyers arguing against payment? And why not just pay what he thinks is fair if he doesn't honestly think he's paying enough? And why manage the money in such a way as to gain the best tax advantage? Is this merely his effort to keep lawyers and accountants employed? Noble of him.
OK. So, I'm assuming there is an angle whenever billionaires seek press and want to make laws.
I tried to find the text of the bill so I could see for myself what it is. I cannot find it. I found things like wikipedia telling me "what it does", and various opinions on the thing, but no actual text of the bill. It must be that Nancy Pelosi was talking about most bills, not just the one, when she said, "We need to pass the bill to see what's in it", or words very close to that.
So, the thing to do is to encourage your senators and congress representatives to pass all legislation so you can then get copies of the actual bill and know if you like it or not. If it hasn't passed how will we ever know what's in it?
My default position is that unless I can see the actual wording of a proposed law, I am not in favor it passing. I'd also like to see any little piggy back add-ons which maybe put money in pockets where it doesn't belong, or adds power where it should be withheld. The trick you with names and such.
They'll do something like name bill the "Keep Children Safe From Ax Murderers Bill", then in it require parents to document to authorities that their kid eats green beans as prescribed by law, and mandates that all seat belts in new cars be bright orange in color.
And then it may also include a million dollars to renovate and declare someone's home in Maine a historic site. And another five million to buy it for the federal parks, or give it Spain, or who knows what.
So, if you oppose this bill, you don't care if our children are filleted by ax murderers or rogue chefs.
It didn't pass, so who knows if the Buffet Bill was just more grandstanding or not. What were the actual words?
If he had any real guts, he'd have said the irs is a waste of resources and not the stuff of a free country, and then he would have suggested a more benign, less complex system of taxation. But he is part of an elite class who do nothing without an angle. Often we, the serfs, can't see the angle because we don't have enough information.
It is so comforting to know how much people like Warren Buffet care about us lesser beings. And how much he cares about who pays what. He cares a lot.
But just short of caring enough to set the example and pay whatever he thinks is fair without somebody making a law which may or may not actually affect his cash flow. It warms my heart. nd being on board with Warren gives fuel to the thrill of focussing on The Rich.
Pay up, you bastards!! as if I have any idea who are The Rich and what they do or don't pay, except that the top 10 percent do pay the vast majority of the tax bill. This I know.
That Buffet Bill maybe would have put them in their place. Or maybe it would only have fooled the angry while maintaining the status quo. There may have even been an orange seat belt provision.
If only they'd passed it so we could know what it was. And how many pages it was. Could they write hundreds of pages on a thing like that? The legislators themselves don't read bills most of the time, or know what is in them in any detail.
That part is unimportant. It is important that they care, and that new laws keep getting made. That gives us a sense of sec urity. Or something.
I believe one of my first forays into the verbose smoke screen of government prose was the 911 commission report, or whatever it was called. I have since forgotten the title, but not the surprising language and scope of topics.
It had less to do with the nature of the Towers attack, and more to do with laying groundwork for domestic martial law, usurping control of resources, private companies, etc--in the event of any emergency deemed worthy by unelected bureaucrat.
My most recent effort was to actually read this Buffet Tax bill that got defeated. I'm suspicious of it because, if you made a million dollars and didn't take any deductions, didn't know how to invest to save on taxes and all that, you'd already be paying a higher rate than the poor saps who only make 150 thousand, and they'd pay more percentage of their income than those who make 75 thousand.
People tend to forget that even if the percentage was the same the million dollar baby would be paying far more than the seventy five thousand sap.
Buffet, himself, piqued my suspicion when he claimed his high paid secretary pays a higher rate than he does. I mean, this is a guy whose battery of lawyers is dueling with the IRS over a half billion tax bill.
If he is so concerned about the government getting paid, why the lawyers arguing against payment? And why not just pay what he thinks is fair if he doesn't honestly think he's paying enough? And why manage the money in such a way as to gain the best tax advantage? Is this merely his effort to keep lawyers and accountants employed? Noble of him.
OK. So, I'm assuming there is an angle whenever billionaires seek press and want to make laws.
I tried to find the text of the bill so I could see for myself what it is. I cannot find it. I found things like wikipedia telling me "what it does", and various opinions on the thing, but no actual text of the bill. It must be that Nancy Pelosi was talking about most bills, not just the one, when she said, "We need to pass the bill to see what's in it", or words very close to that.
So, the thing to do is to encourage your senators and congress representatives to pass all legislation so you can then get copies of the actual bill and know if you like it or not. If it hasn't passed how will we ever know what's in it?
My default position is that unless I can see the actual wording of a proposed law, I am not in favor it passing. I'd also like to see any little piggy back add-ons which maybe put money in pockets where it doesn't belong, or adds power where it should be withheld. The trick you with names and such.
They'll do something like name bill the "Keep Children Safe From Ax Murderers Bill", then in it require parents to document to authorities that their kid eats green beans as prescribed by law, and mandates that all seat belts in new cars be bright orange in color.
And then it may also include a million dollars to renovate and declare someone's home in Maine a historic site. And another five million to buy it for the federal parks, or give it Spain, or who knows what.
So, if you oppose this bill, you don't care if our children are filleted by ax murderers or rogue chefs.
It didn't pass, so who knows if the Buffet Bill was just more grandstanding or not. What were the actual words?
If he had any real guts, he'd have said the irs is a waste of resources and not the stuff of a free country, and then he would have suggested a more benign, less complex system of taxation. But he is part of an elite class who do nothing without an angle. Often we, the serfs, can't see the angle because we don't have enough information.
It is so comforting to know how much people like Warren Buffet care about us lesser beings. And how much he cares about who pays what. He cares a lot.
But just short of caring enough to set the example and pay whatever he thinks is fair without somebody making a law which may or may not actually affect his cash flow. It warms my heart. nd being on board with Warren gives fuel to the thrill of focussing on The Rich.
Pay up, you bastards!! as if I have any idea who are The Rich and what they do or don't pay, except that the top 10 percent do pay the vast majority of the tax bill. This I know.
That Buffet Bill maybe would have put them in their place. Or maybe it would only have fooled the angry while maintaining the status quo. There may have even been an orange seat belt provision.
If only they'd passed it so we could know what it was. And how many pages it was. Could they write hundreds of pages on a thing like that? The legislators themselves don't read bills most of the time, or know what is in them in any detail.
That part is unimportant. It is important that they care, and that new laws keep getting made. That gives us a sense of sec urity. Or something.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Elasticity of Time
It never ceases to amaze me how variable time is. It seems like Saturday was a week ago, rather than a day or two. Yet, the last few years seem like a month. I'll never quite get used to the lack of linearity in the things that are linear by definition.
In the grand scheme. I think the idea of relative percentage of experience explains why a week or a year seems like eternity to a child. A year might be more than ten or twenty or fifty percent of his total life, depending upon his age. And your whole life is kind of like eternity. I feel like I have always been here because I don't have a sense of any beginning. How could you, really?
I have early memories, but it is not as if that was the beginning. Awareness is a tricky thing, I guess. It seems I was aware of good before I was aware of evil. Maybe kindness and happiness are actually more natural than sadistic oppression and anger. Not that all of it is not in human nature. I think the cultivation of qualities develops with cultural habits. And some things, like anger, tend to feed upon themselves.
NOTE: My facts about the tribe described below are most likely incorrect in the details. The point is still the same. It may be that group in Malaysia that didn't have any cavities.
That tribe which was found maybe forty years ago in some rain forest which had no concept of murder or any of that sort of thing really paints the picture. They were very pretty people, and they had been roaming the rain forest forever. They didn't do any building, farming or much of anything but run around naked, look beautiful, and be content. Enter contact with anthropologists, who, of course, thought it would be great to give them one machete. Adios peaceful, happy culture.
They soon learned about murder, jealousy, greed, etc. That all indicates to me that the out of control, destructive traits are not a requirement for human life, but it doesn't take much for the dark side to have a life of its own in a society. Dumbass behavior is like a virus-it spreads rapidly. Just check out gang areas, and the things that go on with those who truly control power and money. It is dumbass behavior. Religious war is dumbass behavior.
Anyway, it is all continually changing, and what was once one unit can be compressed or stretched, whether we are talking time or beliefs or values, or levels of relative importance. But those who insist that certain behaviors have always been with us as a species, and that they always will, are assuming that they have the whole history of our kind in view.
They may be right, and they may not. Some people don't even remember as far back as one or two years old in their own lives, so they have no clue about when they became jerks. How can they assume mankind never did anything but defend against, or be controlled by, jerks?
They don't know. It just feels good to say, "we've always had wars, and we always will." Nothing pisses me off more than people who spout unprovable bullshit while pretending to be very logical and scientific. We've always had pompous know-it-alls who are full of themselves. Or maybe we have. We sure have them now. They don't have any answers, just dire pronouncements on fate. I'd hate to think people will forever have to deal with as much of that as we do now. We've dealt with the struggle to pretend to know all the truth for a long damned time. And it usually serves egos but not much else.
Truly seeking answers, and pretending that nothing different can possibly shed more or different light on the world of science and reality do not go hand in hand. The latter defeats the effort to know. People were burned at the stake for seeing that accepted truth was not on the mark. Just how it goes.
For some reason those peaceful people in the forest, pre-discovery by anthropologists, could wander around in naked bliss without the usual rashes and problems someone like me would incur. So, think twice if you were considering emulating their lifestyle at home. You may have a group of like-minded friends, and you think you can start a new isolated society of peace and happiness. But chances are, you will get savaged by bugs, fungus, and your own offensive odors. You might not survive the period of adaptation, which could take generations.
So, may as well be one of the pushy jerks, who pretends not to be a pushy jerk, in this culture. If you can make sense of it otherwise, and thrive, then yay for you, go for it.
One thing that tribe of hot looking people did not have; Subaru cars. No kings, as far as I know, either. Would I give up my car if the world became free of monarchs, dictators, and those who weild power but pretend they are "public servants"? Get back to you on that...
In the grand scheme. I think the idea of relative percentage of experience explains why a week or a year seems like eternity to a child. A year might be more than ten or twenty or fifty percent of his total life, depending upon his age. And your whole life is kind of like eternity. I feel like I have always been here because I don't have a sense of any beginning. How could you, really?
I have early memories, but it is not as if that was the beginning. Awareness is a tricky thing, I guess. It seems I was aware of good before I was aware of evil. Maybe kindness and happiness are actually more natural than sadistic oppression and anger. Not that all of it is not in human nature. I think the cultivation of qualities develops with cultural habits. And some things, like anger, tend to feed upon themselves.
NOTE: My facts about the tribe described below are most likely incorrect in the details. The point is still the same. It may be that group in Malaysia that didn't have any cavities.
That tribe which was found maybe forty years ago in some rain forest which had no concept of murder or any of that sort of thing really paints the picture. They were very pretty people, and they had been roaming the rain forest forever. They didn't do any building, farming or much of anything but run around naked, look beautiful, and be content. Enter contact with anthropologists, who, of course, thought it would be great to give them one machete. Adios peaceful, happy culture.
They soon learned about murder, jealousy, greed, etc. That all indicates to me that the out of control, destructive traits are not a requirement for human life, but it doesn't take much for the dark side to have a life of its own in a society. Dumbass behavior is like a virus-it spreads rapidly. Just check out gang areas, and the things that go on with those who truly control power and money. It is dumbass behavior. Religious war is dumbass behavior.
Anyway, it is all continually changing, and what was once one unit can be compressed or stretched, whether we are talking time or beliefs or values, or levels of relative importance. But those who insist that certain behaviors have always been with us as a species, and that they always will, are assuming that they have the whole history of our kind in view.
They may be right, and they may not. Some people don't even remember as far back as one or two years old in their own lives, so they have no clue about when they became jerks. How can they assume mankind never did anything but defend against, or be controlled by, jerks?
They don't know. It just feels good to say, "we've always had wars, and we always will." Nothing pisses me off more than people who spout unprovable bullshit while pretending to be very logical and scientific. We've always had pompous know-it-alls who are full of themselves. Or maybe we have. We sure have them now. They don't have any answers, just dire pronouncements on fate. I'd hate to think people will forever have to deal with as much of that as we do now. We've dealt with the struggle to pretend to know all the truth for a long damned time. And it usually serves egos but not much else.
Truly seeking answers, and pretending that nothing different can possibly shed more or different light on the world of science and reality do not go hand in hand. The latter defeats the effort to know. People were burned at the stake for seeing that accepted truth was not on the mark. Just how it goes.
For some reason those peaceful people in the forest, pre-discovery by anthropologists, could wander around in naked bliss without the usual rashes and problems someone like me would incur. So, think twice if you were considering emulating their lifestyle at home. You may have a group of like-minded friends, and you think you can start a new isolated society of peace and happiness. But chances are, you will get savaged by bugs, fungus, and your own offensive odors. You might not survive the period of adaptation, which could take generations.
So, may as well be one of the pushy jerks, who pretends not to be a pushy jerk, in this culture. If you can make sense of it otherwise, and thrive, then yay for you, go for it.
One thing that tribe of hot looking people did not have; Subaru cars. No kings, as far as I know, either. Would I give up my car if the world became free of monarchs, dictators, and those who weild power but pretend they are "public servants"? Get back to you on that...
Sunday, April 15, 2012
More Open Mic
Tonight was an experimental evening. Regardless of outcome, I think I know one of the reasons why I play. It is an escape from anything remotely connected to The Big Pretense; all the things that grab attention toward social structure, authority, the alleged world condition, every bit of input which is actually a diversion from being a real human being and living life.
The kinds of things addressed in the last few posts. None of those topics serve to liberate the mind, creativity, potential, or the pursuit of happiness. It is all garbage, unless you get your thrills by trying to control others in some way, or wallow in the thrill of being victimized. Garbage.
The one rule I have regarding playing is that I do not want to do anything political. I just do not want it. I don't want to protest, or sing about it. It ruins the whole thing for me. I won't wear Che shirt or a shirt that indicates that Che lovers are idiots.
I participated slightly in efforts for the anti-SDGE Powerlink movement, and it did not feel right. I couldn't do it for long. Sure, I know the thing is a huge theft and ugly from all angles, but I can't deal with it in that way. Especially not by playing.
So, that's out of the way. One of the house band guys encouraged me to sign up to play by myself. He wanted them to back me and follow. I asked a guy that has roots in country, bluegrass, gospel and old time rock and roll to play as well. He knew I had no idea what to play.
We decided on a boogie riff, and figured the others could catch on to that. We figured wrong. I played and tried to get the others in a groove but they weren't having it. Their guitar guy has a bit of a resentment toward me and showed his colors. Next thing I know, he is making up words; sort of mock, fake blues thing. I hate it when people do that. That is not wht blues is about, and it shows a lack of understanding of the art.
Anyway, Les, my guitar friend, and I just looked at each other with big question marks all over our faces. We shrugged and just did what we could. I figured I'd throw a curve on the next one and tell them to do something in A minor.
At some point I brought it into kind of a rhythm riff, which Les caught, but no one else up there understood. So I just played what I could and called it a night.
Fortunately a guy named Tim asked me to play earlier in the evening on one of his originals. That went well.
Part of the sneaky experiment was to see if the guitar guy could or would jam, and see if I could get that group to actually play. I couldn't. Les also had me play on a couple he did earlier, and when it was over he concluded the we were in A and maybe the band was somewhere else. This guy knows what he's doing and has done it for a long time. He plays harmonica well, too.
So, there it is. It was an odd night, and some of it made no sense. But, I was not troubled or distracted by things I can't control and that do nothing for me. I couldn't control the house players, but I was the one conducting the experiment, and I managed to play something and work it out, sort of.
Good, bad or ugly, it is closer to home than many things, and it gave me the awareness of why I bother. It may be the closest thing to true reality I know. That doesn't mean my views and thoughts have altered or that I'll be wearing an Obama button. Just means I know that show is an audience participation dog and pony show in the big carnival. I don't even like carnivals. Haven't since I was 14.
The kinds of things addressed in the last few posts. None of those topics serve to liberate the mind, creativity, potential, or the pursuit of happiness. It is all garbage, unless you get your thrills by trying to control others in some way, or wallow in the thrill of being victimized. Garbage.
The one rule I have regarding playing is that I do not want to do anything political. I just do not want it. I don't want to protest, or sing about it. It ruins the whole thing for me. I won't wear Che shirt or a shirt that indicates that Che lovers are idiots.
I participated slightly in efforts for the anti-SDGE Powerlink movement, and it did not feel right. I couldn't do it for long. Sure, I know the thing is a huge theft and ugly from all angles, but I can't deal with it in that way. Especially not by playing.
So, that's out of the way. One of the house band guys encouraged me to sign up to play by myself. He wanted them to back me and follow. I asked a guy that has roots in country, bluegrass, gospel and old time rock and roll to play as well. He knew I had no idea what to play.
We decided on a boogie riff, and figured the others could catch on to that. We figured wrong. I played and tried to get the others in a groove but they weren't having it. Their guitar guy has a bit of a resentment toward me and showed his colors. Next thing I know, he is making up words; sort of mock, fake blues thing. I hate it when people do that. That is not wht blues is about, and it shows a lack of understanding of the art.
Anyway, Les, my guitar friend, and I just looked at each other with big question marks all over our faces. We shrugged and just did what we could. I figured I'd throw a curve on the next one and tell them to do something in A minor.
At some point I brought it into kind of a rhythm riff, which Les caught, but no one else up there understood. So I just played what I could and called it a night.
Fortunately a guy named Tim asked me to play earlier in the evening on one of his originals. That went well.
Part of the sneaky experiment was to see if the guitar guy could or would jam, and see if I could get that group to actually play. I couldn't. Les also had me play on a couple he did earlier, and when it was over he concluded the we were in A and maybe the band was somewhere else. This guy knows what he's doing and has done it for a long time. He plays harmonica well, too.
So, there it is. It was an odd night, and some of it made no sense. But, I was not troubled or distracted by things I can't control and that do nothing for me. I couldn't control the house players, but I was the one conducting the experiment, and I managed to play something and work it out, sort of.
Good, bad or ugly, it is closer to home than many things, and it gave me the awareness of why I bother. It may be the closest thing to true reality I know. That doesn't mean my views and thoughts have altered or that I'll be wearing an Obama button. Just means I know that show is an audience participation dog and pony show in the big carnival. I don't even like carnivals. Haven't since I was 14.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Semantic Influences
It crossed my mind that people tend to think in terms of royalty and, subtly, caste. I'm always bothered that people consider the president of a nation to be its king because that ignores the purpose and structure of a republic.
The guy is there to serve as administrative agent to carry out the laws. Or something like that.
If I start a company, chances are I will install myself as president. I realize that it has become common now to list CEO as the top gun. But it has traditionally been president, and small companies still have either president, or president and CEO. It makes the sole proprietor feel good to claim the title CEO.
The thing is, in that company I started, I am king. It runs on my rules and I can, to a point, hire and fire as I like. People see the president of a company as one who can choose how it allocates resources, decide work rules, etc. Or fire you for somehow offending his or her majesty. That is pretty much to be expected.
In the realm of government, however, this view of the title, "president", is not how it is supposed to be. In this case, the president serves at the pleasure of the citizens, not vice versa. It could be that the language and other cultural traditions have caused us to retain that feudal outlook, much to the detriment of the cause of liberty.
Fairy tales, charming and informative as they are, often focus on the privileges and entitlement of royalty. A position one cannot earn, but must either be born to, or achieve by conquering an opposing army. Even then one must be the one in which all power resides, as far as the army which won.
So, we treat our career politicians as royalty, and the president as king. Special planes, a mansion with countless chefs and servants of all kinds. Special pensions, insurance, you name it. Even exemption from many of the laws they create which the rest of us must obey.
I don't expect to change any of that, but it can't hurt to point it out. I do think that it may have a lot to do with traditions which date back to times when lords and kings had absolute power. And in a country in which it used to be an admirable accomplishment to start and run your own company, the confusion between the two types of president can cause some issues.
Some try to dampen the monarch worship by saying, "I don't respect the person but I respect the office". Fair enough. Do you respect that office more than your on office in life? Or do you simply fear it? Maybe you think anything with an official seal must be revered or you will be guilty of lack of patriotism.
I'm not sure where I stand on these things.
For example, The Pledge of Allegiance. It was written in 1892 by Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy, who was also a socialist. He had a utopian vision of an America with financial and all else equality for all. Lots of people have had that view, and still do. It doesn't tend to work in practice because people don't like to find themselves carrying the load while others slack off. The system requires constant vigilance and enforcement by some authority. Good luck trusting that outfit.
Anyway, this was written by a socialist for a Columbus Day event which included impressionable children corralled into making a pledge of allegiance, which seems rather devoid of conditions. Not until 1954 were the words, "Under God" placed in this oath. That was due to pressure from the Knights of Columbus.
People have come to view this thing as a patriotic oath which all should affirm over and over. I'm a little skeptical about the wisdom of such pledges. I would, and have, taken an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I believe that is part of the military thing, as well as what elected officials vow to do, but don't. That is because I whole heartedly believe in the number one document which was designed to limit the power of authority in this country. It provides the state with certain permissions. What the individual can't do is supposed to be spelled out. What the individual can do is everything not forbidden.
Someone will say I am wrong on this. I do not think I am. The point is that their is a difference in these oaths. I'm suspicious of any oath of allegiance to a state, especially one required of children who haven't a clue what it means or why they are reciting it. A pledge written by a well meaning fascist of sorts. One who dreamed of a socialist society powered by a military industrial complex. Hmm. I guess dreams do come true. I wonder if he guessed how much of the population would have to be doomed to abject ignorance, and how many bought cheaply, in order to continually garner the votes and support it took to get this far.
Anyway, the good Baptist did have some noble sentiments, but we part ways somewhere along the path. I would not expect him to honor an oath I'd concoct either; "I pledge to kick your ass if you mind my business when I am not harming you, and to which it stands, with a go away doormat and a hemet for all".
That would be fun to introduce into the schools. I wonder if anyone would know it makes not so much sense.
It is interesting how that little allegiance thing became the cause of those who swear they are opposed to socialism of the nazi tradition, or communism, yet, without the bigotry aspect of the national socialist party, Bellamy was basically in line with their system.
The church kicked him out for his socialist sermons, and he quit attending because they were bigots. A case in which I agree with both the negatives. Not keen on the system of socialism, nor am I fond of bigots. Why does the name Al Sharpton jump to mind when I hear that word these days? I used to think of David Duke when the word came up. How times change.
The guy is there to serve as administrative agent to carry out the laws. Or something like that.
If I start a company, chances are I will install myself as president. I realize that it has become common now to list CEO as the top gun. But it has traditionally been president, and small companies still have either president, or president and CEO. It makes the sole proprietor feel good to claim the title CEO.
The thing is, in that company I started, I am king. It runs on my rules and I can, to a point, hire and fire as I like. People see the president of a company as one who can choose how it allocates resources, decide work rules, etc. Or fire you for somehow offending his or her majesty. That is pretty much to be expected.
In the realm of government, however, this view of the title, "president", is not how it is supposed to be. In this case, the president serves at the pleasure of the citizens, not vice versa. It could be that the language and other cultural traditions have caused us to retain that feudal outlook, much to the detriment of the cause of liberty.
Fairy tales, charming and informative as they are, often focus on the privileges and entitlement of royalty. A position one cannot earn, but must either be born to, or achieve by conquering an opposing army. Even then one must be the one in which all power resides, as far as the army which won.
So, we treat our career politicians as royalty, and the president as king. Special planes, a mansion with countless chefs and servants of all kinds. Special pensions, insurance, you name it. Even exemption from many of the laws they create which the rest of us must obey.
I don't expect to change any of that, but it can't hurt to point it out. I do think that it may have a lot to do with traditions which date back to times when lords and kings had absolute power. And in a country in which it used to be an admirable accomplishment to start and run your own company, the confusion between the two types of president can cause some issues.
Some try to dampen the monarch worship by saying, "I don't respect the person but I respect the office". Fair enough. Do you respect that office more than your on office in life? Or do you simply fear it? Maybe you think anything with an official seal must be revered or you will be guilty of lack of patriotism.
I'm not sure where I stand on these things.
For example, The Pledge of Allegiance. It was written in 1892 by Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy, who was also a socialist. He had a utopian vision of an America with financial and all else equality for all. Lots of people have had that view, and still do. It doesn't tend to work in practice because people don't like to find themselves carrying the load while others slack off. The system requires constant vigilance and enforcement by some authority. Good luck trusting that outfit.
Anyway, this was written by a socialist for a Columbus Day event which included impressionable children corralled into making a pledge of allegiance, which seems rather devoid of conditions. Not until 1954 were the words, "Under God" placed in this oath. That was due to pressure from the Knights of Columbus.
People have come to view this thing as a patriotic oath which all should affirm over and over. I'm a little skeptical about the wisdom of such pledges. I would, and have, taken an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I believe that is part of the military thing, as well as what elected officials vow to do, but don't. That is because I whole heartedly believe in the number one document which was designed to limit the power of authority in this country. It provides the state with certain permissions. What the individual can't do is supposed to be spelled out. What the individual can do is everything not forbidden.
Someone will say I am wrong on this. I do not think I am. The point is that their is a difference in these oaths. I'm suspicious of any oath of allegiance to a state, especially one required of children who haven't a clue what it means or why they are reciting it. A pledge written by a well meaning fascist of sorts. One who dreamed of a socialist society powered by a military industrial complex. Hmm. I guess dreams do come true. I wonder if he guessed how much of the population would have to be doomed to abject ignorance, and how many bought cheaply, in order to continually garner the votes and support it took to get this far.
Anyway, the good Baptist did have some noble sentiments, but we part ways somewhere along the path. I would not expect him to honor an oath I'd concoct either; "I pledge to kick your ass if you mind my business when I am not harming you, and to which it stands, with a go away doormat and a hemet for all".
That would be fun to introduce into the schools. I wonder if anyone would know it makes not so much sense.
It is interesting how that little allegiance thing became the cause of those who swear they are opposed to socialism of the nazi tradition, or communism, yet, without the bigotry aspect of the national socialist party, Bellamy was basically in line with their system.
The church kicked him out for his socialist sermons, and he quit attending because they were bigots. A case in which I agree with both the negatives. Not keen on the system of socialism, nor am I fond of bigots. Why does the name Al Sharpton jump to mind when I hear that word these days? I used to think of David Duke when the word came up. How times change.
Did You Ever Think...
You'd look at the Clinton era nostalgically?
Sometimes I bet you even catch yourself pining for the days of Bush when it was OK to call the president names without being labelled a racist or placed on Homeland Security's terrorist profile list, and when gas prices were outrageous but only half what they are now.
Presidents are not kings so they shouldn't be the ones to have such influence. I pine for the days when that was true, as well.
Remember when you could intelligently avoid issues based on common sense and such? Like, who is going to shoot you most likely? A. A clean cut guy in a suit B. a gangsta looking guy with a hood over his head, pants below his ass, a sneering expression, and one finger hand gesture. C. A young woman in a bikini
If you chose A, you are a moron. If you chose B, you are a racist pig. If you chose C, you are probably correct.
Every once in awhile I check out various reports of new executive orders and legislation. Republicans and democrats have both advanced the tyranny of of the executive branch, in particular, but not exclusively, to such a degree that people don't want to even think about it because they feel helpless, they are cowards, it turns the stomach, and they don't want to rock the boat.
We are one well milked disaster away from a police state which has control of everything and everyone.
OK. I will state an opinion, but I will not sign a petition that includes my address or other contact information. I used to, but no more. Hell, the head of Homeland Security has suggested that being a Ron Paul supporter indicates that you are a domestic terrorist. Almost any obvious dissent labels one as a threat to national security under this administration. Real treason is OK, though.
I do not contribute to the monster in other ways that most people do. But I no longer write letters and sign petitions. In this age it only puts you in the database, and you may not have been there previously. So now who knows which qualifiers may be tagged to you.
The adage that if you have nothing to hide you have no worries from government and police was never actually true. It is certainly not true now.
This is where the tyranny actually comes from the 99%, even if unintended. Most land grabs, and other over the top actions b authority only affect a small minority at any given time. As long as it doesn't infringe on the lives of most people, they don't care. They don't even care if a thing is wrong. And if they think they will be cut in on a piece of the action, they'll vote for the criminal activity. That is why you have a republic, not a democracy. A constitutional republic. That means it has big limits, and is there to protect the rights of the individual, not facilitate mob rule which changes on whim and is nearly always cruel and unjust to the minority of the moment.
I don't see an answer. And I do not feel safe petitioning and writing letters. When I have the money and am sure of my tax status then maybe I will. Right now I'm not in shape to fight with any bogus harassment which is considered normal by most. I could not deal with an irs agent without exploding because they are no better than nazis and an other totalitarian agents. How could we, as a nation, have ever allowed this kind of thing to develop?
Sometimes I bet you even catch yourself pining for the days of Bush when it was OK to call the president names without being labelled a racist or placed on Homeland Security's terrorist profile list, and when gas prices were outrageous but only half what they are now.
Presidents are not kings so they shouldn't be the ones to have such influence. I pine for the days when that was true, as well.
Remember when you could intelligently avoid issues based on common sense and such? Like, who is going to shoot you most likely? A. A clean cut guy in a suit B. a gangsta looking guy with a hood over his head, pants below his ass, a sneering expression, and one finger hand gesture. C. A young woman in a bikini
If you chose A, you are a moron. If you chose B, you are a racist pig. If you chose C, you are probably correct.
Every once in awhile I check out various reports of new executive orders and legislation. Republicans and democrats have both advanced the tyranny of of the executive branch, in particular, but not exclusively, to such a degree that people don't want to even think about it because they feel helpless, they are cowards, it turns the stomach, and they don't want to rock the boat.
We are one well milked disaster away from a police state which has control of everything and everyone.
OK. I will state an opinion, but I will not sign a petition that includes my address or other contact information. I used to, but no more. Hell, the head of Homeland Security has suggested that being a Ron Paul supporter indicates that you are a domestic terrorist. Almost any obvious dissent labels one as a threat to national security under this administration. Real treason is OK, though.
I do not contribute to the monster in other ways that most people do. But I no longer write letters and sign petitions. In this age it only puts you in the database, and you may not have been there previously. So now who knows which qualifiers may be tagged to you.
The adage that if you have nothing to hide you have no worries from government and police was never actually true. It is certainly not true now.
This is where the tyranny actually comes from the 99%, even if unintended. Most land grabs, and other over the top actions b authority only affect a small minority at any given time. As long as it doesn't infringe on the lives of most people, they don't care. They don't even care if a thing is wrong. And if they think they will be cut in on a piece of the action, they'll vote for the criminal activity. That is why you have a republic, not a democracy. A constitutional republic. That means it has big limits, and is there to protect the rights of the individual, not facilitate mob rule which changes on whim and is nearly always cruel and unjust to the minority of the moment.
I don't see an answer. And I do not feel safe petitioning and writing letters. When I have the money and am sure of my tax status then maybe I will. Right now I'm not in shape to fight with any bogus harassment which is considered normal by most. I could not deal with an irs agent without exploding because they are no better than nazis and an other totalitarian agents. How could we, as a nation, have ever allowed this kind of thing to develop?
New Look
Well, gmail's new look turned out to be change I cannot believe in. I'm not one who resists technological change. I like things that are better, and improved. Things that suck, I do not like, nor do I consider a change from good to sucky an improvement. Not change I can believe in.
I see no way to change back to the old look on gmail. I think time ran out so they foisted the new dumbass look on me regardless of my input. Hey, they design it and make it available, so that is their right. I just give it at least one thumb down. Maybe two thumbs down.
Blogger is dying for me to try their new look. I guess it will attack in similar fashion. Seems I may have looked at that ahead of time, too, and not been impressed. Progress does not necessarily require meaningless change, and progress is not desirable unless it is positive and constructive. You'd think it would just be a positive value in itself but that is the trap.
What passes for progress is often merely stupid and oppressive change. But not a change for the better, like gmail. Just a stupid change.
This goes for much of life.
PS: I discovered I can "revert to the old look, temporarily" on google.
I see no way to change back to the old look on gmail. I think time ran out so they foisted the new dumbass look on me regardless of my input. Hey, they design it and make it available, so that is their right. I just give it at least one thumb down. Maybe two thumbs down.
Blogger is dying for me to try their new look. I guess it will attack in similar fashion. Seems I may have looked at that ahead of time, too, and not been impressed. Progress does not necessarily require meaningless change, and progress is not desirable unless it is positive and constructive. You'd think it would just be a positive value in itself but that is the trap.
What passes for progress is often merely stupid and oppressive change. But not a change for the better, like gmail. Just a stupid change.
This goes for much of life.
PS: I discovered I can "revert to the old look, temporarily" on google.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- John0 Juanderlust
- Ballistic Mountain, CA, United States
- Like spring on a summer's day
